-I personally don't think that either of these times define the beginning of human life, but i wonder who on here does.

i'm not interested in hearing any other beaten-to-death abortion arguments. just post if you define the beginning of human life at either of these extremes.

9/15/2008 10:58:45 PM

At conception.

9/15/2008 11:02:23 PM

when it become a viable child without being connected to the mother.

9/15/2008 11:17:47 PM

^ so that would be at like age 4, right?

9/15/2008 11:18:51 PM

You can kill a human life without it feeling pain, so why does it matter anyway?

If trailer trash has an infant and wants to throw it away, then why not just treat it like the energy efficient light bulbs? You must have special procedures for disposing of it, but that's no reason to not throw it away.

9/15/2008 11:26:55 PM

you do realize that you just compared human life to a light bulb, right?

9/15/2008 11:29:52 PM

i'd rather compare them to ants

9/15/2008 11:31:32 PM

Most people would agree that at some point, aborting a baby is murder. For some life begins at conception, for some it doesn't begin until you are more than halfway out of the mother.

The judges in Roe v Wade decided that a viable baby exists around the 28 week period, but it still can be killed to save the life of the mother.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal gov't any jurisdiction over the crime of murder. That is left to the States. At some point, abortion is murder. Let the individual states determine where that point is.

9/15/2008 11:31:36 PM

Perhaps Mrs. Palin will put the secret service on my every time i beat off and kill 100,000,000 miracles of life and potential
HUR Jr's

Quote :

"when it become a viable child without being connected to the mother."

Agreed

Quote :

"so that would be at like age 4, right?"

If the baby at 7 months can survive on a respirator than at least social services can foot the bill
and put the baby into a foster home or orphanage.

Quote :

"If trailer trash has an infant and wants to throw it away, then why not just treat it like the energy efficient light bulbs? You must have special procedures for disposing of it, but that's no reason to not throw it away. "

Technically at this point it is "detached" from the body and an individual. A 8 week yr old embryo essentially
is a variance of Commensalism which is a relation btw two living organisms where one benefits and the other
is not significantly harmed or helped or even a parasite if you consider morning sickness as well as a abdominal swell
negative effects.

I think partial birth abortions are despicable and thus I agree with the ban. If it takes some trailer park whore
6 months for Ray Ray to leave her after which she decides to abort than she just needs to have the baby.

Their is a multitude of problems with banning abortion. As we know with the "war on drugs" just outlawing something
does not mean it will not happen. The rich will go to Canada rather than facing shame of having a teen daughter have a baby. The poor who may have otherwise had ambitions to break out of the circle of poverty will now be stuck w/o any options. Even worse many women will seriously injure themselves or even die from self-inflicted abortions. This was a major factor in the 60's and previous decades prior to woe v. wade. Lastly you have the fringe cases incest, rape, danger to the mother.
I will be damned if the gov't expects my 15 year old daughter to carry to term the offspring of some piece of shit unholy barbarian that abducted and raped her while walking home after school.

When it comes down to it I do not consider any one life to be some "gift" or miracle from heaven. The earth is overpopulated as is. We have laws to encourage as well as create a stable society. If early during the pregnancy a woman decided for whatever reason that it is not in her best interest then she should have a right. This is NOT a zero sum game. All this does is allow women to have children LATER down the road when they may be more financially secure or married; rather then having to drop out of college and living on welfare.

9/15/2008 11:47:42 PM

Do you think that outlawing abortion entirely like the bible thumpers want would increase the incidence of rape?

I think it would.

9/16/2008 12:03:53 AM

haha. nice hypothetical question there with no evidence to even begin to support it.

9/16/2008 12:04:43 AM

conception.

i only see abortion as ok when the life of the mother is at stake (obviously) or in certain rape cases

aborting a baby takes away any chance that baby has. who is to say that baby may not be a great world leader or superstar athlete or something of the like? Aborting it gives it no chance. and i know the argument about how it is worse to bring a baby into some of the poverty than to abort it but i disagree. look at a lot of the athletes in pro sports today as just one example. many come from very poor backgrounds which is why they get in trouble b/c once they get all their money all their "friends" from back in the day expect something and they fall into the wrong crowd too many times.

sports is just one example but aborting the child gives it absolutely no shot at success. having it does give it a chance.

9/16/2008 12:05:56 AM

Quote :

"i'd rather compare them to ants"

[Family Guy]
They are ants, Michael! They are ants...
[/Family Guy]

9/16/2008 12:10:20 AM

.

9/16/2008 12:33:09 AM

9/16/2008 12:41:53 AM

I think life begins at 18 years old. That way when I have kids and they get bad grades in school I can threaten them with abortion to straighten them out.

9/16/2008 12:42:06 AM

I really do not buy the whole argument that a woman having an abortion could be killing our next leader and altering the future of the world. A roller coaster accident or tire blowout could do the same thing by killing a future parent. Any time someone decides not to have sex they could be denying us the worlds next great leader. If a guy beats off he could be too he might be blowing his best sperm out on the towel....


You cannot outlaw people deciding not to have sex. You cannot prevent the millions of things that can kill a person prior to having that next child. You cannot throw people in prison for beating off or pulling out or using a condom or using birth control.

I think this whole debate comes down to your religious position. If you believe that god creates each human life specifically at the time of conception then I can understand why you would feel that it is murder.

There is a biological explanation for conception and if you look at it solely from that point of view you are not harming anything, the fetus is not developed enough to know whats going on.

The bottom line is, the US (in theory) does not make laws around a specific religion, they make them around the needs and issues of society.

Someone choosing to have an abortion does not affect anyone else in society besides the potential parents.

9/16/2008 12:51:18 AM

Well we know where New Mexico stands...

9/16/2008 12:54:24 AM

Doesn't matter. Convenience has always decided whether someone deserves to live or die.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 12:54:35 AM

Quote :

"Do you think that outlawing abortion entirely like the bible thumpers want would increase the incidence of rape? I think it would."

WAT? I don't see WAT the legality of abortion one way or another has to do with incidence of rape.

9/16/2008 12:55:50 AM

Quote :

"I think this whole debate comes down to your religious position."

entirely false. on so many levels. for many, it may be a religious position, but I can guarantee you that mine is not.

Quote :

"Someone choosing to have an abortion does not affect anyone else in society besides the potential parents."

Of course, this neglects all the people that this life would have touched and affected and any accomplishments said life would have achieved. But fuck, it's just a clump of cells. Down the tubes!

9/16/2008 12:58:31 AM

Quote :

" the fetus is not developed enough to know whats going on."

A sleeping person doesn't know what's going on either.

9/16/2008 1:00:21 AM

Quote :

"" the fetus is not developed enough to know whats going on.""

I think this is one of the stances where the pro-choice people fail.

If we keep the quote as it is, then sleeping people, severely mentally retarted people, infants till the age of ~3, etc, also wouldn't know what's going on if I took a baseball bat to their head or a chainsaw to their neck.

If we alter it to:

the fetus is not developed enough to feel pain,

then the pro-choice people should be against abortion after 3-5 weeks max.

9/16/2008 1:08:45 AM

If people made better choices then this question would hardly even matter.

9/16/2008 1:19:38 AM

Hitler's mom thought about aborting him. Fact.

9/16/2008 1:26:05 AM

Hitler's favorite ice cream flavor was rum raisin. Fact.

9/16/2008 1:41:45 AM

Quote :

"If the baby at 7 months can survive on a respirator than at least social services can foot the bill and put the baby into a foster home or orphanage."

I used to favor similar lines of argument, but the line of thinking starts to break down with the realization that life-support technology has changed and will continue to change.

Right now, a fetus developed for seven months might be able to survive outside of the mother hooked up to the right equipment. A hundred years ago it couldn't. (For all I know they can't know, but you get the idea) A hundred years from now, we'll be able to keep them alive from an even earlier stage of development. It's hard for me to accept a definition of the beginning of life that shifts with technology.

Quote :

"Of course, this neglects all the people that this life would have touched and affected and any accomplishments said life would have achieved. But fuck, it's just a clump of cells."

Quote :

"aborting a baby takes away any chance that baby has. who is to say that baby may not be a great world leader or superstar athlete or something of the like?"

The flipside of that is that the baby has a pretty good chance of turning out to be an asshole, too. The right abortions might have prevented the greatest atrocities in history. It's possible -- though completely unprovable either way -- that abortions could produce a net of lives saved rather than lives lost. A handful of abortions in Germany around the turn of the century might have saved tens of millions of lives down the road.

Letting the kid live gives it a chance to do great things or terrible things. Hell, taking a very perverse look at it, you might be doing it a favor by denying it the chance to become a monster.

Quote :

"i only see abortion as ok when the life of the mother is at stake (obviously)"

How is it obvious that it should be OK to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person? And, if you're going to consider them both people...if anything, the baby is more innocent. How is it obviously the right choice to kill an innocent person to save a guilty one?

---

In spite of how I've talked so far, I'm against abortion. But the only remotely legitimate reason to oppose it is because you think that the entity being aborted is a person. The opposite is true of the pro-choice camp. To argue about any other point on either side of the debate is an illogical waste of time at best and an espousal of murder at worst.

Of course, this is where the problem comes in, because there's not a particularly legitimate reason to put the "start of life" at any particular point.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 1:49:33 AM

Quote :

"WAT? I don't see WAT the legality of abortion one way or another has to do with incidence of rape."

Why don't you see this? Because you're playing stupid?

Believe it or not, there are people who would get a thrill out of raping a girl while thinking that she might carry his baby later. For some rapists out there, the fact that the girl can abort it later might just be a complete buzz kill.

You know, repeat rapists generally attack unarmed (sentencing is different) and look for victims that would put up little resistance. These guys are opportunistic shits. If society creates more opportunity for them, they'll take it.

Quote :

"Right now, a fetus developed for seven months might be able to survive outside of the mother hooked up to the right equipment. A hundred years ago it couldn't. (For all I know they can't know, but you get the idea) A hundred years from now, we'll be able to keep them alive from an even earlier stage of development. It's hard for me to accept a definition of the beginning of life that shifts with technology."

Test tube babies!

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 1:52 AM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 1:51:00 AM

Heres a compromise that I suggest, dont set it in stone, the idea is to have a tiered stage. I am not a particular fan of the extremes of both sides.

First Tri-mester: Abortions allowed for whatever reason
Second Tri-mester: Abortions with some restrictions, kind of a grey area for me.
Third Tri-mester: Abortion only allowed for medically necessary reasons.

Theory is if you don't want to have the kid, or if it was from a rape/incest, you'd likely get the abortion done early, since, medically speaking, its alot easier to abort a 2wk

Some suggestions for when live 'begins', you can research them for yourself:
-Transition from embryo to fetus (I think this is the 1-2 trimester bridge)
- Regular breathing commences (fairly late 2 or 3 trimester?)
- Brain 'turns on' (neurons fire), or heart beats regularly (I think these are first trimester events?, but we often say someone is dead by checking for brain or heart activity).

9/16/2008 1:53:18 AM

Quote :

"Test tube babies!"

As I understand it, even "test tube babies" at this point are gestated more or less to term inside a uterus like the rest of us.

9/16/2008 1:54:45 AM

yes, but in the future we will make test tube babies.

9/16/2008 1:56:18 AM

I always love it when you guys go all "futurist" on me. We will do this, we will do that.

They told my dad, "We will all have flying cars in 2000."

It seems fairly likely that we can, or at least, that we could, if our life expectancy as a species wasn't cut short by the impending zombie crisis

9/16/2008 1:58:50 AM

Quote :

"Believe it or not, there are people who would get a thrill out of raping a girl while thinking that she might carry his baby later. For some rapists out there, the fact that the girl can abort it later might just be a complete buzz kill."

How many people? 100 in the whole country? Do you have any numbers to back up those wild claims?

What if abortion was made illegal but allowed in cases of rape? That would solve the problem wouldn't it? (the problem that you have to somehow show evidence of it existing)

9/16/2008 2:02:44 AM

well if they can't master the test tube babies sometime Japan is going to run out of people by 2500

9/16/2008 2:03:43 AM

Quote :

"The flipside of that is that the baby has a pretty good chance of turning out to be an asshole, too. "

I lol'd

9/16/2008 2:05:44 AM

Quote :

"They told my dad, "We will all have flying cars in 2000.""

As a result, the Grumpster never trusted predictions again.

True story.

9/16/2008 2:11:38 AM

i believe it begins at birth

but then again i don't have a kid...when i go through that my opinion might change

kind of like how my dad didn't believe in god until i came into the picture

9/16/2008 2:36:48 AM

Predictions are fine when it's just "This will probably happen," or even, "This will almost certainly happen." To state that human development is moving in one specific direction and will inexorably end up at a specific outcome is a bit much.

But you'll note my total lack of surprise that the word "futurist" conjured you out of thin air so quickly. It's like a magic word. The shittiest magic word ever.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:38 AM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 2:36:54 AM

This thread will eventually turn into a senseless flame war.

9/16/2008 2:40:49 AM

^yep, it's a wedge issue. People have strong feelings about it, but it has absolutely no relevance to 99% of people's existence.

9/16/2008 2:52:13 AM

Don't feel bad, Grumpster. I've also been affected by negative experiences in my youth. We all have. Broken trust and lost innocence rarely return.

On topic, I have to agree with Duke. It's murky. I don't see any reason to try to avoid that.

9/16/2008 3:07:22 AM

Quote :

"How is it obvious that it should be OK to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person? And, if you're going to consider them both people...if anything, the baby is more innocent. How is it obviously the right choice to kill an innocent person to save a guilty one?"

how is it ok to extend the right-the-life to someone that isnt even born? you cant stifle the rights of the mother for the rights of the fetus.

9/16/2008 8:50:36 AM

Neither. And I think it's a somewhat unimportant question.

9/16/2008 8:55:08 AM

Life at conception

SELF AWARENESS MUCH MUCH LATER.

9/16/2008 8:56:16 AM

this is a very real and relevant thread for me.

my wife is 10 weeks pregnant right now (about 2-3 weeks from 2nd trimester) and right now we are arguing severely on whether or not we should screen the baby for Down's Syndrome or other mental retardation or malfunction.

in turn, we also are both not sure what do even if we found out the baby has these effects....it's a very very REAL dilemma when you are faced with it instead of it being academic. For instance, we were both very much in support of aborting the baby for this if we found out before birth but now we just don't know what to think anymore....the guilt of if that is the right choice or not is incredibly difficult.

9/16/2008 8:56:36 AM

^The majority of babies diagnosed w/ downs are aborted nowadays. But you have to keep in mind that there are plenty of cases of the diagnoses being wrong. Also, whats so bad about a kid with downs? They always seem to enjoy life more than "normal" people. I'm willing to bet that you'd be hard pressed to find parents of a handicapped child who wish they had never had them. Just because they're different doesn't mean they aren't worthy of life.

9/16/2008 9:03:17 AM

I didn't way we were decided to abort them, we just don't know what to think. it's very confusing.

Kids with down's are very very tough life altering experience regardless if you support aborting them or not....anyone can agree with that. Teir life is riddled with physical, emotional, mental, and financial hardship. Life expectancy nowadays is up to the 40-50's so that's better but again, I'm not saying whether or not it constitutes aborting them...my point is that there's also no way in hell you can relate to the decision until it's in front of you and you actually have to make it. That changes things.

9/16/2008 9:07:32 AM

i know that i would not be strong enough to have a special needs child

9/16/2008 9:11:25 AM

Quote :

"...my point is that there's also no way in hell you can relate to the decision until it's in front of you and you actually have to make it. That changes things."

Yeah, thats definitely true. I didn't mean to make light of your situation or attack you personally. I can tell you're wrestling with it and not jumping to a quick conclusion. I was just trying to give a counterpoint to what is increasingly becoming the normative stance on the issue.

9/16/2008 10:08:53 AM

The answer is simple, birth.

9/16/2008 10:13:36 AM